TMI Blog1936 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, the company paid to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 87-2-6 as the first instalment. On 18th July 1933 a notice was sent to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Bank intimating that by an order of 10th July 1933, AMEER ALI, J., had directed that a meeting of the depositors of the company should be held on nth August 1933 for the purpose of considering, and if it thought fit, approving, with or without modification, a scheme of arrangement proposed to be made between the company and the depositors. A copy of the scheme of arrangement was annexed to the notice. Part of the scheme provided as follows: "The depositors (which expression also includes depositors who have filed suits or obtained decrees against the company) will not be enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged, and which in effect have roped him in within the class of depositors. The first thing to be observed is that he has waited for nearly three years, after the scheme was sanctioned, to bring this petition, and it being a matter of discretfon, I refuse for that reason alone to grant it. But as I have been referred to various decisions of this Court, I desire to make some remarks about them: In the matter of Dewangunj Bank Industry Ltd., BUCKLAND, J. had occasion to deal with a similar set of facts. He held that a depositor who obtains a decree against a banking company before any scheme is embarked upon by the latter, ceases to be a depositor and becomes a decree-holder; that when an order is subsequently obtained from the Court dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had ceased to be a depositor and had passed into another class was sound on the ground that a depositor was a person who had rights arising out of a contract created by his deposit with the company, whereas a decree-holder's rights depend upon the decree, in which the contract debt has become merged. He is entitled to be treated as belonging to a different class under section 153, Companies Act. On this point there are conflicting decisions of this Court. In Serajgunj Loan Office Ltd. v. Nilkanta Lahiri, Mitter, J. in what was apparently a carefully considered judgment, held that for the purpose of section 153 creditors of a certain class ( e.g., unsecured creditors), who have already obtained decrees, do not form a distinct class fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 153 are strictly limited. The Court may either sanction or refuse to sanction a scheme approved by the company and its creditors or its members. It has no power to modify or alter the scheme unless the company and its creditors or members have had an opportunity of considering the scheme again along with such suggested modifications and have agreed thereto. This was decided by this Court sitting in appeal in Mahendra Kishore Dutt v. Brahmanbaria Loan Co., Ltd. I cannot conceive therefore what power this Court can have, upon an application, such as the present, to alter a scheme, which has not only been sanctioned by the Court but has been agreed to at a meeting convened under the provisions of section 153, without giving the parties w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
